re: new team must add atleast 68 million to new tv contract to be viable.

States would an absolutely arbitrary way to determine premiums. No Big 10 team is in a situation like WVU being so close to a bordering State's huge city. I have to believe WVU would bring the Pitt market. Otherwise they wouldn't have been rumored about so much regarding the SEC.

do you realize most OOC games in non football sports are already at home?


we arent talking adding football cost people. atleast not the majority of the added travel cost. But when you factor in mens and womens basketball, baseball, softball, track, tennis, gymnastics, swimming, and all the other sports.....that shite adds up. think about how many ooc games we play away in baseball......not to damn many. same goes for the other sports outside of football.

unless the SEC changes the way these sports are scheduled I dont see how 2 million isnt a good estimate. Im assuming they wont.

somebody explain to me how Im wrong on this. If I am I will be happy to admit it but right now I dont see where Im so off on the numbers at.

quote:

---

baloo what do you think added travel cost would be during a given year for schools like MSU, LSU and arky to WVU? if Im high I will readjust but it cost a lot to bring all those little sports up there when you consider hotel, charter flight, food, etc. you have to factor in all coaches, support staff, gettting equipment to and from.

---

First, as someone already pointed out, you aren't adding a game to the schedule. You are replacing one. So there is money saved versus the new cost.

Secondly, the most expensive travel is going to be football. Even assuming your 2 million figure is correct, only 5 teams per season will make the trek to the new member school. So we're at only an extra cost of 10 million instead of 24 million. And that's assuming your conjured number is correct.

Thirdly, the SEC sponsors 13 sports with unique schedules: baseball, softball, soccer, M&W basketball, football, volleyball, track, swimming, golf, tennis, cross country, and gymnastics. Of those sports, several involve events that have multiple schools going to one location -- they don't have the head-to-head nature of football and wouldn't have the same travel. In fact, it's possible those smaller sports would not travel to the new member school at all (track, swimming, golf, gym, and cross-country). And in a sport like gym, LSU, for example, only makes THREE road trips in conference this season. The team sports further limit travel costs by having more games against schools close to you.

Let's assume travel to A&M for the purposes of this example. How would it impact LSU? How many trip are they making to A&M? For all of the "Olympic" sports, maybe one trip, but one that would've been scheduled anyway. there's no change in cost. Of the 8 team sports, let's just say say that LSU is likely to make four road trips. Your argument is that these four road trips will cost the school $2 million? I don't find that number believable, or how do you explain LSU's ability to make road trips now?

ETA -- If we assume the $2 million per school, your argument is that LSU's current travel budget for athletics is $22 million. That seems way too high.

Finally, you are adding one cost element, which is fine, but assuming TV is the only revenue element, which isn't true. There's four road trips, but four more home games. Some of those in revenue sports like baseball or basketball, not to mention football.

ok assume that there is no added cost at all any new member would still have to add 41.3 million to any new contract just for the new school to make 17.3 million and all existing schools to get a 2 million dollar bump. well we know the new school will have to have the same bump so a minimum of 43.3 million is need just for all schools(excluding A&M) to make an extra 2 mil per year.

its not even worth expanding for that little bit of profit. hell they could raise ticket prices 5 dollars a game at lsu and make this up and many would gladly pay it to not expand the conference.

do you believe WVU can add 43.3 million to the existing contracts?

quote:

---

In relatively remote Tucson, travel consumes 10 percent of Arizona's $42 million athletics budget.

---

$4.2 million. But adding one more team to the conference will add $2 million in travel costs per team? I don't buy that at all.

yea i agree we could do much worse. and if we are going 16 I think they are a great option. just not sold on them for 14.


and baloo i took out all travel cost in the post above and asked if you think wvu could bring that in per year. do you believe they could?

i agree but does only getting a half million bump per school even seem worth it?


and the point you just made is why the sec network is so important in the future. hell if we made even 2 million extra per school we would still be a good bit behind a 12 team b1g in terms of revenue.

quote:

---

hell Raleigh NC beats that by itself. Not to mention the state of NC has 3 times as many people as the whole pitt market and WVU combined(thats assuming no part of WV is in that number even though they are).

---

1. I live in Raleigh. Raleigh/Durham is roughly the size of Pittsburgh. There are also 4 major universities just in the Raleigh/Durham/Greenville area - a 100 mile radius - UNC, Duke, NCSt. and ECU. UNC has the largest fanbase/viewers of these 4 teams. This viewership is SMALLER than WVU's - the remaining teams are much smaller. In other words, all of these teams bring less TV's than WVU.

2. Raleigh's population is 60% northeastern (transplanted Yankees from NY and Jersey and Mass) They have zero interest in SEC (or even ACC) football - they watch the Yankees and Red Sox, Jets and Giants on cable. - no TVs.

3. WV may only have 1.8 million people, but WVU owns 90% of this population, who are all natives and not transplants, not to mention a share of the Pittsburgh market, and a thin slice of the DC pie.....and the best part is most of the state now has electricity, and even TV sets, cable and satellite!!!!